High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:116804-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21916 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Upadhyay Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Devesh Pandey, J.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri J.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent no.1 and Shri D.P. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Firozabad-Shikohabad Development Authority (respondent no.2). 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following principal reliefs:-
Legal Reasoning
"(I). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 not to create any hindrances or obstruction in any manner whatsoever in carrying out of development of "Bhoopleshwar Dham" Colony in accordance with sanctioned Map/Lay out Plan situated at Gata No.157Ka, 157Kha, 157Ga & 157Gha, Village-Sikrari, Block-Tundla, Tehsil-Tundla, District- Firozabad. (II) Issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to treat stand regularized the colony of the petitioner under Section 59 (6) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973." 3. It appears from the record that the petitioner purchased part of agricultural land of Gata No.157Ka, 157Kha, 157-Ga & 157-Gha situated at Village Sikrari, Tehsil Tundla, District Firozabad from the erstwhile tenure holder, who was having the transferable rights free from all encumbrances after paying full sale consideration through registered sale deed dated 22.07.2006 and his name had also been recorded in the revenue record. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 143 of Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tundla, District Firozabad for conversion of land use. The Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 28.09.2006 declared the land in question as abadi and directed the Tehsildar, Tundla to correct the revenue entry in the revenue record accordingly. After conversion of the land use, the petitioner proposed to develop a colony namely "Bhoopleshwar Dham" over the said land and submitted a map/lay out plan before the competent authority for sanction. The map/lay out plan was sanctioned by the Firozabad-Shikohabad Development Authority, Firozabad (in short, Development Authority) on 09.02.2015. The petitioner had developed the colony strictly in accordance with the sanctioned map/lay out plan.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has placed reliance on the notification dated 07.4.1995 issued under Section 3 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (in short, Act, 1973), whereby the State Government had declared the revenue villages of Tehsil Firozabad, Shikohabad, Jasrana and other regulated areas of Firozabad under the territorial jurisdiction of Development Authority. He submits that later on, in view of provision contained under Clause (2) of Article 243-Q of Constitution of India read with sub-section (2) of Section 3 of U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, the previous notification dated 28.12.1994 had been modified by the State Government vide notification dated 29.12.1999 and included the area specified in Schedule Urban area of Nagar Palika Parishad Tundla for the purpose of Part IX-A of Constitution of India. The said area was treated under the territorial area of the said Municipal Council, Nagar Palika Parishad Tundla, District Firozabad. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner's holding, which falls under the Municipal Council, Nagar Palika Parishad, District Firozabad, was also declared as abadi and the map/lay out plan was duly accorded by the Municipal Council, Nagar Palika Parishad in the year 2015. Later on, on the basis of approval accorded by the Nagar Palika Parishad, the residential colony was developed. He submits that the Competent Authority i.e. Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat, Tundla, District Firozabad had approved/sanctioned the lay out plan on 09.02.2015. He submits that in view of the approval accorded by the Kshetra Panchayat Sikrari, Tehsil Tundla, the development had been carried out as per law out plan. Later on, in the year 2016 the jurisdiction of the Development Authority had been extended and the notification had been issued on 12.07.2016, whereby the petitioner's land also falls in the territorial jurisdiction of the Development Authority. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this backdrop vehemently contended that as the map was approved by the erstwhile authority of the Development Authority and in view of the lay out plan, which was approved, certain construction had been carried out. Therefore, at this stage, the Development Authority has no right to interfere in the construction, which is duly approved/sanctioned by the erstwhile authority i.e. Competent Authority of Kshetra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Sikrari, Block Tundla, District Firozabad. He submits that the relief, as has been prayed for, is liable to be extended by this Court. 7. Per contra, Shri D.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Development Authority has resisted the relief and states that on 12.07.2016, the territorial jurisdiction of the Development Authority had been extended under the Act, 1973 and no activity is permissible contrary to the master plan. He submits that the construction, if any, is to be carried out strictly in consonance with the plan approved by the authority under Section 14 & 15 of the Act, 1973 and the regulations framed thereunder. The alleged construction is contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1973. He submits that even for the sake of argument, if it is accepted that some lay out plan had been approved by the erstwhile authority in the year 2015. Once the territorial jurisdiction of the Development Authority had been extended in the year 2016 and in case any such construction is to be raised, the same shall be raised strictly as per the law out plan approved by the Authority. Even the members of the Society are not permitted to carry out any development activity as per provision contained under Sections 14 and 15 of the Act, 1973. Nothing is brought on record to indicate that the Authority had ever approved the lay out plan of the Society. In absence thereof, the relief, as prayed before this Court, is misconceived and
Decision
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 9. In the instant matter, it is pressed that the erstwhile authority had approved the lay out plan of the Bhoopleshwar Dham Colony. It is not disputed that since 2016, the disputed site falls in the territorial jurisdiction of the Development Authority. We find that even in case of some approval of the lay out plan by the earlier authority, since 2016 the Development Authority has every right to regulate and to ensure that the construction is to be made in its territorial jurisdiction in consonance with the approved plan. However, in case the petitioner moves an appropriate application qua to his grievance before the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority alongwith certified copy of this order within three weeks from today, we hope and trust that the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed strictly as per law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Sachin Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad